Quote from: rocks on December 03, 2014, 06:46:57 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 03, 2014, 06:19:49 PM

Quote from: rocks on December 03, 2014, 06:00:36 PM

The first wave of alts were simple clones, it was almost a given that network effects would hold them back here. However the next wave of alts are going to
a) come with real innovations and then
b) come with government sanctioned force

i think a) and b) are oxymorons. force precludes the need to innovate. thus Bitcoin will always have that advantage. we've already seen the failure of MintChip due to just this dynamic.

Yes, I was saying they are different coins and different attempts. The first wave were the clones (which we've already had), the next wave a) will have some level of actual innovation, and the wave after that b) would be government attempts to resist Bitcoin and regain control.

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 03, 2014, 06:19:49 PM

the creation of USDCoin would be a tacit admission by the govt that Bitcoin has merit and, paradoxically to their wishes, money will always flow to that platform which treats it best. that can't happen with an inflationary, violent coin.

It would be an admission by the government that Bitcoin has merit. It would also be sold to the public as having all the benefits of Bitcoin with all the security of government money. Given the history of money, this has worked. It did for the FED in the 1930's.

The very first thing to understand about Bitcoin is that its store of value function is at least an order of magnitude more important than its payment or remittance functions. Very roughly speaking, something like 90% of the value of Bitcoin is in something the government cannot possibly replicate without relinquishing control of the money supply. They could create digital money, but that wouldn't touch the lion's share of Bitcoin's value proposition.